stop_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Stop' implies a potentially destructive or state-changing action, but the description does not mention side effects, whether it kills the process, requires specific permissions, or is reversible. It adds almost no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, but conciseness itself is appropriate. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and object, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5 because some added details about parameters would improve it without hurting conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: what constitutes a 'background run,' how to identify which run to stop (runId vs projectPath), and what happens after stopping. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail is needed for reliable invocation, so this is clearly below the minimum viable completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 2 parameters (runId, projectPath) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain either parameter, so the agent has no idea what to pass or which one is required. This is a complete gap in parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action: 'Stop a background Godot run.' The verb 'stop' and resource 'background Godot run' are clear, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'run_project' which starts runs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other possible stop-like tools, so it doesn't earn a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply says 'Stop a background Godot run,' which implies use when a run is in the background, but there are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of alternate tools. This is minimal guidance at best.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.